On Sat, 5 Apr 2003, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Which 12 were repeated?
The following essentially tell me nothing more than "as I have said before,
I think reverse mapping in the DNS is useless".
Actually, the messages contain explanations of why various theories about
the dependability of reverse mapping can't be relied on, and other schemes
which were brought up to show its usefulness. Many such schemes were
brought up, and refuted. That doesn't make the refutations
repetitive--though one might wonder why people keep proposing schemes that
aren't really substantially different. Suppressing the refutations doesn't
make such schemes any more workable. However, as was also shown, Rob
Austein has a history of promoting the use of reverse for authentication,
and in doing so, participated in causing the BSD r-command exploits, and
the myth of open-relay abuse, and other problems which trace themselves to
inappropriate trust placed in in-addr. Rob doesn't seem to have learned
much from these experiences, and continues to promote the same position he
held in 1986.
I don't think you understood the messages, or the issues being complained
about: Neither Rob's complaint, nor my complaint. Perhaps you could take
some more time to investigate and fully understand the issues.
http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/2003-04/msg00027.html
The message above is unique. It offers a new statement for the
in-addr-required draft, after the issue was restarted inappropriately by
Rob Austein. According to Rob, the in-addr-required draft is a "new
topic" unrelated to the previous topic of dropping support for reverse.
(This is in my complaint, which it seems you haven't read.)
http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/2003-04/msg00000.html
The message above is a complaint that Rob re-started the debate with a new
angle--It is not a repetition. You will note that 27 messages were made
on the list between these posts.
The remaining messages do not need to be individually addressed.
--Dean